ORDER : NUPUR BHATI, J. 1. Though the matters were listed in the fresh category, However on the Joint request of the Counsel for the parties the matters are being heard today itself. 2. These writ petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 31.10.2023 (Annex.6) passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.4 Udaipur in Civil Suit Nos. 310/2012 (CIS No. 260/2014) (Dinesh V/s Kishanlal) and 314/2012 (CIS No. 289/2014) (Hema V/s Kishanlal) respectively and to reject the application dated 31.10.2023 (Annex.5) filed by the respondent under Order 8 Rule 1 A (3) CPC. Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is common, therefore, the writ petitions are being decided by this common order. 3. Brief facts of the case are the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit (Annex.1) for Specific Performance of Contract and Permanent Injunction against the respondent/defendant wherein it was contended that the land of Araji No. 2314 measuring 0.2800 hectares and Araji No. 2315 measuring 0.2150 hectares, total land measuring 0.4950 hectares situated in Village Dewali Patwar Shobhagpura, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur was in khatedari of respondent/defendant and the respondent/defendant proceeded to cut/demarcate the plots in the said agricultural land for which a layout plan was prepared and thereafter plot no.11 measuring 1511.25 square feet and plot No.12 measuring 1985 square feet were agreed to be sold to the petitioner/plaintiffs for sale consideration of amount of Rs. 1,20,900/- and 1,58,800/-respectively and an agreement to sale was executed between the parties on 21.12.2001. Thereafter, the consideration amount was duly paid and the possession was also handed over to the petitioners and the parties thereafter agreed to get the sale deed registered however, the respondent/defendant refused to execute and register the same and thus, the suit was filed by the petitioners against the respondents for specific performance and permanent Injunction. 4. Furthermore, written statement were filed by the respondent/defendant on 24.01.2013 (Annex.2) and thereafter issues were framed by the trial court. During pendency of suit proceedings, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 was filed by Vinod Katariya & Others which was rejected vide order dated 31.3.2015. Thereafter the proceedings remained stayed on account of interim order passed by this Hon'ble High Court in SBCWP No. 7637/2015 and 7639/2015. The writ petitions were dismissed on 02.06.2016. 5. During pendency of suit proceedings, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 was filed by Vinod Katariya & Others which was rejected vide order dated 31.3.2015. Thereafter the proceedings remained stayed on account of interim order passed by this Hon'ble High Court in SBCWP No. 7637/2015 and 7639/2015. The writ petitions were dismissed on 02.06.2016. 5. Thereafter an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC came to filed by the respondent/defendant on 29.11.2019 and on 02.03.2020 another application (Annex.3) under Order 8 Rule 1 A (3) CPC was filed by the respondent and vide order dated 31.7.2023, (Annex.4) the application under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) dated 02.03.2020 was allowed by learned trial court and by another order dated 31.07.2023 the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the respondent/defendant was rejected. Thereafter on 18.09.2023 an affidavit of witness Dinesh was filed on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff. 6. Furthermore on 31.10.2023 another application (Annex.5) under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) was filed by the respondent/defendant for taking on record certain documents viz. copies of FIR filed by the petitioner, FR and other the documents related to agreement of respondent with one Vinod Kataria viz. copies of suit, judgment and decree and along with the copy of order dated 25.10.2013 passed in DB Special Appeal No 828/2011. 7. Furthermore, on 31.10.2023 an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC was filed by the petitioner for taking on record certain documents to show that the respondent had executed agreement to sale with other persons with whom he had entered into compromise thereafter. 8. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 31.10.2023 (Annex.6) has allowed the application of respondent filed under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC. 9. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.10.2023 (Annex.6) to the extent of allowing application of respondent under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC preferred this writ petition. 10. 9. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.10.2023 (Annex.6) to the extent of allowing application of respondent under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC preferred this writ petition. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the learned trial Court is arbitrary and against law and thus, the same deserves to be set aside as the trial Court has failed to consider that the documents which are sought to be brought on record by the respondent as they are having no relevance with the suit filed by the petitioner and the application filed under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC was a delaying tactic and moreover the list of such documents has not been provided, which are prayed to be brought on record and there is no pleading with regard to relevancy of the documents sought to be produced by respondent and, therefore, the respondent cannot be permitted to place the documents on record as the respondent was also not precluded from producing the documents along with the written statements or in the earlier application filed by him Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that on earlier occasion an application dated 02.03.2020 had already been filed by respondent under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC which was allowed on 31.7.2023, and the documents in question were not produced on record at the time of filing the first application thereafter, filing of subsequent application dated 31.10.2023 under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC proves that the respondent has filed the subsequent application simply to delay the matter and no reason for delay has been given by the respondent in the second application under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC and thus the said application ought not to have been allowed by the learned Trial Court. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that all these documents sought to be produced by the respondent on record are irrelevant for the purpose of decision of the suit filed by the petitioner. He further submits that the respondent did not produce the documents with the earlier application filed by the respondent under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC and thus the respondent is now barred by the principle of res-judicata under CPC. He further submits that the respondent did not produce the documents with the earlier application filed by the respondent under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC and thus the respondent is now barred by the principle of res-judicata under CPC. In support of his arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgement passed by the coordinate bench of this court in the case LRs of Tulsi Ram versus parmeshwar lal (SBCWP 16351/2017). 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant submits that the documents I.e. the FIR filed by the petitioner/plaintiffs along with the FR presented in the same and documents along with it i.e. the agreement executed by the respondent in favour of one Vinod Kataria, copy of the suit, decree, copy of the writ petition No. 828/2011 and the order dated 25.10.2013 passed by the Hon’ble High Court passed in the aforementioned writ petition, which the respondent/defendant sought to produce on record are all relevant for the case pending in trial court and for the adjudication of the case at trial court. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant also submits that the suit was filed on 06.07.2011 and the written statement was filed on 24.07.2013, and the FIR and FR were filed in the year 2019 and thus, the documents itself came into existence in the year 2019; there was no delay on behalf of the respondent/defendant in filing the application under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC and moreover, the documents sought to be produced by the respondent/defendant are in possession of the petitioner, which is also mentioned in the application dated 31.10.2023 filed by the respondent/defendant and he further submits that the documents sought to be produced are also public documents and thus, be allowed to be produced on record. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant also submits that the application filed by the him cannot be rejected on the ground of delay and that it is filed simply to prolong the case, without going into the essence of the documents sought to be placed by the party on record. He further places reliance on the judgements passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sugandhi (Dead) by Lrs and Anr versus P.Rajkumar reported in 2020 (10) SCC 706 and in the case of Mohd. Rafiq and Ors versus Smt Jaitoon and Ors. reported in 2017(2)WLC (Raj) (UC) 295. He further places reliance on the judgements passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sugandhi (Dead) by Lrs and Anr versus P.Rajkumar reported in 2020 (10) SCC 706 and in the case of Mohd. Rafiq and Ors versus Smt Jaitoon and Ors. reported in 2017(2)WLC (Raj) (UC) 295. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties; perused the material available on record and the judgments cited at Bar 16. This court finds that even prior to filing the application dated 31.10.2023, the respondent/defendant had filed an application dated 02.03.2020 (Annex.3) under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC to bring certain documents on record, which was allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated 31.07.2023. It is pertinent to note that the aforementioned first application under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC dated 02.03.2020 (Annex.3) was filed by the respondent much after filing the written statements i.e. on 24.01.2013 and the second application was filed on 31.10.2023 by the respondent/defendant under Order 8 Rule 1A CPC for taking on record FIR lodged by the petitioner, FR and other documents which pertained to the year 2019, however, no cogent or plausible reason for delay of four years has been assigned in the application filed by the respondent/defendant despite his having knowledge about the same in the year 2019 itself. 17. This Court further observes that though it is the discretion of the court and the documents can be produced only with the leave of the court, however, as per the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC, the respondent/defendant was under an obligation to explain the delay in filing the application and the relevancy of the documents sought to be produced. Furthermore, the respondent should have filed the list of documents along with the written statements and admittedly the same was not filed by the respondent/defendant. Moreover, the respondent/defendant had already filed an application earlier under order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC on 02.03.2020 for taking certain documents on record, however, the documents were very much in existence, were deliberately not filed by the respondent/defendant. Moreover, the respondent/defendant had already filed an application earlier under order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC on 02.03.2020 for taking certain documents on record, however, the documents were very much in existence, were deliberately not filed by the respondent/defendant. This Court finds that by passing the impugned order dated 31.10.2023 (Annex.6) the learned trial court has granted a premium to the respondent/defendant for his lapses, inasmuch despite having knowledge of the documents being in existence, the respondent/defendant failed to bring on record the documents along with earlier application dated 02.03.2020 and by the order impugned dated 31.10.2023 (Annex.6), the respondent/defendant has been granted second opportunity to file the documents by allowing the application Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC, which cannot be countenanced. The learned trial court has seriously erred in passing the order impugned whereby it had allowed the application under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC filed by the respondent/defendant, inasmuch as the respondent/defendant has failed to assign cogent and plausible reason and relevancy of the documents for decision of the suit in the application filed on 31.10.2023. In the considered opinion of this Court, the application filed by the respondent/defendant under Order 8 rule 1A (3), which has been allowed by the trial court, deserves to be rejected. Order 8 Rule 1A CPC reads as under: - “ORDER VIII [Written statement, set-off and counterclaim] [1A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him.— (1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.] (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to documents— (a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.]” 18. The Coordinate bench of this Court in the case Satish Gaggar Vs Satya Prakash & Ors. (SBCWP 11846/2015) has observed that the defendant can be allowed to produce documents at a later stage of the proceedings if the genuine reasons are given by the defendant, However in the present case the respondent/defendant has not provided any reason for the delay as well as the reason for not providing them in time and thus, he cannot be permitted to produce the documents on record after such a delay. Relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced hereaunder:- “The Legislature in its wisdom has engrafted provision like Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) CPC to give some latitude to the defendant to produce document at the later stage of the trial but then such a latitude cannot be claimed by a litigant as a matter of right. It is absolutely within discretion of the court to allow a defendant to produce some documents at the later stage of the proceedings of the suit if the court thinks that there were genuine reasons available with the defendant for not producing the document within time. If the facts of the instant case are examined threadbare, then it would ipso facto reveal that petitioner has already made endeavour earlier to place on record certain other documents at the later stage of the suit but at that point of time, he has not craved leave of the court for producing statements of Madanlal. This sort of action on the part of petitioner pre-supposes that his bona fides are under cloud and the learned court below has rightly observed that he is trying to prolong the proceedings in the matter.” 19. This sort of action on the part of petitioner pre-supposes that his bona fides are under cloud and the learned court below has rightly observed that he is trying to prolong the proceedings in the matter.” 19. This Court finds that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent/defendant had filed the application under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC with a view to delay the proceedings and no cogent reasons have been assigned for the delay occurred in filing the documents, however, this aspect has not at all been considered by the learned court court. 20. Thus, in view of above discussion, the writ petitions deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 31.10.2023 (Annex.6) passed by Additional District Judge No.4 Udaipur in Civil Suit Nos. 310/2012 (CIS No. 260/2014) (Dinesh V/s Kishanlal) and 314/2012 (CIS No. 289/2014) (Hema V/s Kishanlal) respectively, to the extent of allowing the application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC are quashed and set aside. The Stay Petition also stands disposed of accordingly.